Restrictive Covenants - parking on a local highway

User_220321

We moved into a few months ago and my partner has a transit van for his job. The restrictive covenants say you cannot park a commercial vehicle over a tonne on our property or the estate. However, in 2013 the roads in question were adopted by the local highway authority and are maintained at public expense. I have spoke to them and have a letter from their legal department to confirm that they have reviewed all restrictive covenants and lease wording and can confirm that we can use the highway free from private restrictions.
I totally understand that people do not want a van parked outside their windows etc but the highway we wish to park on is next to our corner plot and not in front of any property’s windows etc.
The maintenance company who are employed by the managing agents are pursuing us and charging us £165 for having to write letters to us as they say we are breaching the terms of the lease and the restrictive covenants. However we have a clear letter from the local highway which states in black and white that we can and that these documents have been reviewed by their legal team.
The maintenance company are now saying they will take us to court for an injunction but I’m confused how they can we have permission from the local highway authority. It’s important to note that the maintenance company, who are charging us, also live on this estate and park their own van on the same adopted roads. Finally, some residents are given charges for their commercial vehicles where as some are not - no consistency. Has anyone been in this situation? 

quotememiserable

If they are right depends on whether adoption of the road negates this part of the coventant or not. You probably need to ask your solictor about that. But if it restricts you, it restricts them as well. You could also ask them in writing how come they park their own van in contravention of the convenant.

Ditzy_Mitzy

On the face of it, it seems like the management company is wrong.  Allowing the road to be adopted changes its legal status from private road to public highway, ergo the covenants applicable to it when it was a private road no longer apply.  It is subject only to the normal laws governing roads: Highways Act, Road Traffic Act etc.  The management company can't have it both ways, i.e. keeping the powers available to the private road owner without the responsibilities that go with it.  If they wanted to restrict parking in ways that parking cannot be restricted on the highway, they should have retained ownership of the road.  

davidmcn

Even if it were the case that you were still bound by that covenant, it would be a bit daft considering there would be absolutely nothing the management company could do about a complete stranger coming in and parking on the public road.

Marvel1

WriteBonniemarie said:

I totally understand that people do not want a van parked outside their windows etc 

The maintenance company who are employed by the managing agents are pursuing us and charging us £165 for having
to write letters to us as they say we are breaching the terms of the lease and the restrictive covenants. It’s important to note that the maintenance company, who are charging us, also live on this estate and park their own van on the same adopted roads. 

Tough luck

Write to them ask why are they parking there.

Also if public highway, then I would think the covenant no longer applies.

User_220321

I asked and he says that he has lenience as he is the maintenance man. 

What you’re saying is exactly what the local highway authority said.
thanks 

User_220321

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

On the face of it, it seems like the management company is wrong.  Allowing the road to be adopted changes its legal status from private road to public highway, ergo the covenants applicable to it when it was a private road no longer apply.  It is subject only to the normal laws governing roads: Highways Act, Road Traffic Act etc.  The management company can't have it both ways, i.e. keeping the powers available to the private road owner without the responsibilities that go with it.  If they wanted to restrict parking in ways that parking cannot be restricted on the highway, they should have retained ownership of the road.  

Thank you. The roads were adopted under section 38 of the Highway Act. The local highway authority’s letter says exactly this - that it is for use of both residents and public free from private restrictions. It just seems daft how someone is still trying to enforce this and we are being charged for the letters we are being sent to tell us not to park there. 

jbainbridge

Not sure of the answer to this but .. are they in a position to enforce the covenant legally? Or would that actually be down to the developer/builder?

Ditzy_Mitzy

Bonniemarie said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

On the face of it, it seems like the management company is wrong.  Allowing the road to be adopted changes its legal status from private road to public highway, ergo the covenants applicable to it when it was a private road no longer apply.  It is subject only to the normal laws governing roads: Highways Act, Road Traffic Act etc.  The management company can't have it both ways, i.e. keeping the powers available to the private road owner without the responsibilities that go with it.  If they wanted to restrict parking in ways that parking cannot be restricted on the highway, they should have retained ownership of the road.  

Thank you. The roads were adopted under section 38 of the Highway Act. The local highway authority’s letter says exactly this - that it is for use of both residents and public free from private restrictions. It just seems daft how someone is still trying to enforce this and we are being charged for the letters we are being sent to tell us not to park there. 

In which case the management company has about as much authority as Mrs Goggins from Number 38, i.e. none, when it comes to enforcing parking.  They do not own the highway.  We do.  It's our public good.  
You've mentioned a lease and, I presume, there were conditions under said lease regarding parking on the estate roads as they then were.  At that point the management company represented the freeholder, so could dictate terms.  By allowing adoption, ownership has passed to the public, and control ceded to the Highways Agency and local authority.  It's not their road any more.  
Attempting to charge you for writing entirely illegitimate letters is laughable.  I'd keep them, just in case, but am fairly certain that nothing is going to happen.  A lease is a contract between landlord (freeholder) and tenant.  The landlord has removed itself from the equation by giving up the land.  

User_220321

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Bonniemarie said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

On the face of it, it seems like the management company is wrong.  Allowing the road to be adopted changes its legal status from private road to public highway, ergo the covenants applicable to it when it was a private road no longer apply.  It is subject only to the normal laws governing roads: Highways Act, Road Traffic Act etc.  The management company can't have it both ways, i.e. keeping the powers available to the private road owner without the responsibilities that go with it.  If they wanted to restrict parking in ways that parking cannot be restricted on the highway, they should have retained ownership of the road.  

Thank you. The roads were adopted under section 38 of the Highway Act. The local highway authority’s letter says exactly this - that it is for use of both residents and public free from private restrictions. It just seems daft how someone is still trying to enforce this and we are being charged for the letters we are being sent to tell us not to park there. 

In which case the management company has about as much authority as Mrs Goggins from Number 38, i.e. none, when it comes to enforcing parking.  They do not own the highway.  We do.  It's our public good.  
You've mentioned a lease and, I presume, there were conditions under said lease regarding parking on the estate roads as they then were.  At that point the management company represented the freeholder, so could dictate terms.  By allowing adoption, ownership has passed to the public, and control ceded to the Highways Agency and local authority.  It's not their road any more.  
Attempting to charge you for writing entirely illegitimate letters is laughable.  I'd keep them, just in case, but am fairly certain that nothing is going to happen.  A lease is a contract between landlord (freeholder) and tenant.  The landlord has removed itself from the equation by giving up the land.  

This is exactly how we feel and what everyone involved has said. However, the £165 charges are added to the service charges / charged to our property for their ‘time’ having to write the letters to us. We need to have these charges removed and we need to stop the charge letters. I am worried about them trying to take an injunction out against us to ensure we do not park the van as they have said we will incur all costs. It has taken a considerable amount of my time too and I just need them to stop now as it makes living in our ‘dream’ home unenjoyable. Thank you for your help, have you ever been in this situation or known of anyone who has?

xylophone

Letter from your solicitor to the company?